UpFRONT

In my interview with Craig Burton in the August 2000 issue of
Linux Journal (“Uncollapsing Open Source
Distinctions: Talking with Craig Burton”, p. 16), I said
“historically, the Open Source movement has tried to move away
from the Free Software movement's anti-commercial rhetoric and
policies.”

A few days ago I got an e-mail from Richard Stallman, under
the subject “Who's anti-commercial?”. His answer: not him. And
not the Free Software movement, either:

We do not have anti-commercial rhetoric or
policies, and I'm surprised you would say this.

I know why some people say we are “anti-commercial”. We
criticize a common business practice, and people who do that are
often accused of being “anti-commercial”. But, the fact is that
if a program does not allow commercial use, or if you can't sell
copies, we reject it.

We do not compromise our principles to cater to business;
business today is so used to such treatment that anyone who stands
firm when business says “Change!” is likely to be called
anti-commercial. For instance, the GPL is designed to prohibit some
anti-social practices, and this applies to business just as to
individuals and schools. If people say the GPL is not
“business-friendly”, they probably mean it dares to say no to
some of the things their businesses want to do.

But the GPL extends the same rights to business as it does to
everyone else. And we try to cooperate with business in ways that
are consistent with our principles. For example, I asked publishing
company people for advice when writing the GNU FDL.

So would you please post a correction to that statement about
us?

Since I was making distinctions between two movements, I
decided to share Richard's correspondence with the prime mover of
the other one, Eric S. Raymond, hoping to triangulate a bit on the
full extent of my error. “Okay,” I wrote, “did I step in it
here, or (so far as what he quotes) am I right? Or sort of right?”

ESR wrote back, “It's a tough call. No, the official
interpretation of FSF doctrine is not anti-commercial. In that
sense, yes, you stepped in it.”

An on-the-other-hand explanation (OTOH) followed, but it's
not one that RMS found agreeable. Nor was RMS's disagreement with
ESR's OTOH agreeable with ESR. The e-mail volley between the two
gentlemen continues to fill my in-box, so I'll leave that one alone
for now.

Meanwhile, I invite readers to visit the Free Software
Foundation site at
http://www.fsf.org/. Here
is part of the FSF's explanation of free software:

“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not
price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free
speech”, not “free beer.”

“Free software” refers to the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
it refers to four kinds of freedom for the users of the
software:

The freedom to run the program for any purpose
(freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works and
adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help
your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release
your improvements to the public, so that the whole community
benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition
for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these
freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, with or
without modifications, gratis or charging a fee, to anyone
anywhere. Being free to do this means (among other things) that you
do not have to ask or pay for permission.

So the statement, and I, stand corrected. For my thoughts
about related matters, see this month's “Linux for Suits” on page
20.

—Doc Searls

TRENDS

by Reginald Charney

Languages

Over the last 15 months, the languages with the most growth
have been those directly related to the Internet. Thus, XML, Perl,
HTML, and Java have flourished. However, even these high-flyers
have suffered reversals in the last few months (see
www.accu-usa.org
for more details). It is interesting to note that the highest
flyers are also showing the most deceleration in demand.

Platforms

One of the major changes in the demand deceleration of
platforms is that Windows 2000 has now joined the other platforms
that are experiencing decreased demand. Interestingly enough, while
demand for individual flavors of Windows has decreased, overall
demand for Windows is still growing, albeit slowly. This includes
all dialects of Windows.